William B. Gunter

This case involved Hugh Don Smith, who was convicted in 1972 on multiple criminal charges and initially sentenced to consecutive terms; after an escape from custody led to dismissal of his direct appeal, he pursued habeas corpus petitions challenging his convictions on constitutional grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel. The habeas court, after a five-day hearing, found violations of due process under the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions and granted Smith a new trial. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the issue of ineffective assistance during trial could be raised in habeas proceedings even if a direct appeal had been forfeited due to escape, and that the habeas judge's conclusion was supported by the record. The court did not reach other issues raised in the appeal. Dissenting justices argued that escape should waive constitutional claims.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by plaintiff Turner against the City of Adel and Marable-Pirkle, Inc., an electrical contractor, after Turner was injured in 1973 when his equipment contacted an energized ground wire on a city-owned utility pole. Marable-Pirkle had performed voltage conversion work on the pole in 1965 as an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment to Marable-Pirkle, ruling that a 1968 Georgia statute barred claims against parties involved in the construction of improvements to real property more than eight years after substantial completion. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute did not apply because the work on the utility pole—replacing transformers and equipment—did not qualify as an improvement to real property under the statute's terms, which contemplated structures occupiable by owners for their intended use.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal by an employer seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant in an employment contract against a former employee. The covenant barred the employee from engaging in any building, developing, or selling of real estate in two Georgia counties for five years after leaving the company. The trial court held the covenant unenforceable and denied injunctive relief, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the covenant was overly broad because it prohibited all of the employee's prior job functions—including loan processing, general management, bookkeeping, and sales—exceeding what was necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests and violating state constitutional and statutory rules against restraints of trade.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved an appeal from a contempt judgment against appellant Brooks for refusing to testify in a criminal proceeding after the trial court issued an order compelling his testimony under Georgia's Immunity From Prosecution Statute. The order included language limiting use of the testimony against him but also contained a paragraph stating he would not be required to produce evidence usable in other courts. Brooks argued that the statute and order failed to grant adequate 'use and derivative use' immunity, rendering it unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states. The Georgia Supreme Court interpreted the statute as providing the required immunity protections consistent with federal precedent, held it constitutional, vacated the contempt judgment, and remanded for deletion of the conflicting paragraph and further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff seeking to cancel a deed transferring real estate from a father to his son, reserving a life estate, claiming it was fraudulent to hinder collection of a future judgment from a prior car accident. The trial court, after a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, denied the plaintiff's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence supported the jury's resolution of issues regarding fraudulent intent, knowledge of intent, and insolvency, and that the jury instructions were proper without needing additional charges on burden shifting absent a request.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between a car buyer and a dealership over an alleged breach of warranty concerning a cracked engine block in a used vehicle. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision, which had rested on a procedural ruling that a typographical error in the complaint constituted an admission in judicio barring the plaintiff's claim. The court determined that the breach of warranty issue had been tried on the merits by consent under the Civil Practice Act, so the pleading did not estop the plaintiff, but it affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for the defendant. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's evidence failed to show any warranty or defect at the time of sale, while the defendant's mechanic's affidavit explicitly established the absence of such a defect.

proceduretorts & liability